When they won control of Congress in November, Democrats pressed their case to withdraw troops from Iraq and refocus on Afghanistan, but some are growing impatient with U.S. operations in Afghanistan as well.

A few congressional Democrats go so far as suggesting that the Pentagon should pull out of Afghanistan now, while others say that troop withdrawal will be addressed after the military is out of Iraq.

Rep. Neil Abercrombie (D-Hawaii), a senior defense authorizer, wants the U.S. out of Afghanistan immediately, calling operations there “futile” in trying to effect political change in a country with a tangled history.

Read more of this nonsense at TheHill.com (http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/out-of-afghanistan-rumblings-on-the-hill-2007-06-26.html)

Vocal objections to Afghanistan are still in the minority among democrats, but you can bet that as soon as they achieve defeat in Iraq, a majority of the Benedict Murthas will turn their sights on Afghanistan. :Poke:

StcChief

06-27-2007, 02:20 PM

It's time to draft congressmen

BucEyedPea

06-27-2007, 02:32 PM

Well, there is something to be said about politically reforming the area. That is beyond us. We're not going to be able to change those folks. Unlike Iraq, though, they were deserving of invasion and some loss of sovereignty because the Taliban govt was sponsored by alQaeda and so were intimately connected to the 9/11 attacks. No easy practical solution on this one.

WoodDraw

06-27-2007, 04:58 PM

I count two democrats who favor withdrawl and three who said let's wait and see. The article spends more time talking about Democrats wanting to refocus on Afghanistan than it does them wanting to get out. Your post is pure hyperbole. Republican support for withdrawl from Iraq also hit an all time high in a poll released today, so that opinion gains even more bipartisan support. Those supporting the war are now clearly in the minority.

The irony of all of this is that no one talks about Afghanistan anymore, Republicans included. The Democrats even discussing our role there advances where we are now as far as I'm concerned. I'd love to read more about our work, progress, and long term plan for Afghanistan.

Adept Havelock

06-27-2007, 05:05 PM

It's time to draft congressmen

Yeah, like Kennedy, Inhofe, or Lieberman would be worth a damn in a fight. :spock:

I count two democrats who favor withdrawl and three who said let's wait and see.
Interesting, it seems more Repubs favor withdrawl from Iraq than Dems favor withdrawl from Afghanistan.

The irony of all of this is that no one talks about Afghanistan anymore, Republicans included. The Democrats even discussing our role there advances where we are now as far as I'm concerned. I'd love to read more about our work, progress, and long term plan for Afghanistan.

Agreed.

Taco John

06-27-2007, 05:24 PM

That Benedict Murtha crack is bothersome to me. Like with Vietnam, the folks that ended the madness will take the blame for the loss from the lemmings, and not the idiots who got us into the no-win situation to begin with.

With regards to Afghanistan, I don't honestly know enough about the situation to make even an educated guess at what our course there should be.

I do know that our president took his eye off the ball on the war on terror and put us in a losing situation in both fronts.

StcChief

06-27-2007, 06:08 PM

Yeah, like Kennedy, Inhofe, or Lieberman would be worth a damn in a fight. :spock:

But they can die trying...

I just want a whole sale turn over...Most of these bastards have been there far too long.

We can't get term limits, too expensive for an honest quality person to run against them

Silock

06-27-2007, 06:25 PM

Out of Iraq. Stay in Afghanistan.

Adept Havelock

06-27-2007, 07:03 PM

I just want a whole sale turn over...Most of these bastards have been there far too long.

A point I wholeheartedly agree with.

My dream? Complete turnover in both House and Senate, and a pack of new ones that only have a 1 or 2 vote margin in either house...with each party controlling one part of the legislature.

They'll either have to get serious about comprimise and finding common ground, or they'll be too busy fighting with each other to screw with the average citizen.

patteeu

06-27-2007, 07:03 PM

I count two democrats who favor withdrawl and three who said let's wait and see. The article spends more time talking about Democrats wanting to refocus on Afghanistan than it does them wanting to get out. Your post is pure hyperbole. Republican support for withdrawl from Iraq also hit an all time high in a poll released today, so that opinion gains even more bipartisan support. Those supporting the war are now clearly in the minority.

The irony of all of this is that no one talks about Afghanistan anymore, Republicans included. The Democrats even discussing our role there advances where we are now as far as I'm concerned. I'd love to read more about our work, progress, and long term plan for Afghanistan.

My thread is a reflection of Taco's thread attributing the position of Richard Lugar to the GOP in general. It's too bad you didn't get that. Maybe you missed his hyperbole.

patteeu

06-27-2007, 07:04 PM

That Benedict Murtha crack is bothersome to me.

It ought to. It bothers me too.

Taco John

06-27-2007, 07:06 PM

My thread is a reflection of Taco's thread attributing the position of Richard Lugar to the GOP in general. It's too bad you didn't get that. Maybe you missed his hyperbole.

Actually, I posted a group of GOP senators who were changing their opinion, not just Lugar.

I think we both know that the GOP will be caving soon enough in order to attempt to save their jobs. There's no need for pretense.

Adept Havelock

06-27-2007, 07:07 PM

My thread is a reflection of Taco's thread attributing the position of Richard Lugar to the GOP in general. It's too bad you didn't get that. Maybe you missed his hyperbole.

Hmmm...I just reread the thread, and I don't see where Taco "attributed the position of Sen. Lugar to the GOP in general". I see where the article specifically named several GOP'rs who supported Lugar's statement, but I don't see the hyperbole you are alluding to.

Either I missed it, or it's just more hyperbole.

On an unrelated note, perhaps this thread can accomplish for "hyperbole" what the the "Beryllium" thread is striving for.
PBJ PBJ PBJ

That Benedict Murtha crack is bothersome to me.

Why? I think it shows just how desperate some folks have gotten in defending this clusterfu**.

patteeu

06-27-2007, 07:12 PM

Actually, I posted a group of GOP senators who were changing their opinion, not just Lugar.

I think we both know that the GOP will be caving soon enough in order to attempt to save their jobs. There's no need for pretense.

As Wooddraw noted, my article was about more than one dem too. And I go one step further than you do by being up front about the fact that we are only seeing a minority of democrats sounding off about getting out of Afghanistan so far. But you and I know what will happen if the anti-war constituency in the dem party succeeds in getting us out of Iraq. The pressure on dem politicians over the other Bush war will become intense. We are already hearing them laying the groundwork as they talk up the resurgent Taliban. memyselfi has been kind enough to bring these "distressing" observations to our doorstep on multiple occasions.

WoodDraw

06-27-2007, 07:13 PM

My thread is a reflection of Taco's thread attributing the position of Richard Lugar to the GOP in general. It's too bad you didn't get that. Maybe you missed his hyperbole.

I didn't see Taco's post, so that's my fault. Still, there's a difference between between 40% of Republicans being against Iraq and whatever the Dem number is against Afghanistan. Either way, both threads are crap.

patteeu

06-27-2007, 07:13 PM

Hmmm...I just reread the thread, and I don't see where Taco "attributed the position of Sen. Lugar to the GOP in general". I see where the article specifically named several GOP'rs who supported Lugar's statement, but I don't see the hyperbole you are alluding to.

Either I missed it, or it's just more hyperbole.

On an unrelated note, perhaps this thread can accomplish for "hyperbole" what the the "Beryllium" thread is striving for.
PBJ PBJ PBJ

Did you see where I did it? He did it in exactly the same place.

Adept Havelock

06-27-2007, 07:14 PM

We are already hearing them laying the groundwork as they talk up the resurgent Taliban.

Yep, if we just stop talking about the resurgence of the Taliban...it will just go away. Especially if we click our heels three times while saying "There's no place like home"...

Did you see where I did it? He did it in exactly the same place.

I see where you did with the "Benedict Murtha" nonsense.

Guess I'm a little dense. Link? :p

patteeu

06-27-2007, 07:18 PM

Guess I'm a little dense. Link? :p

Sure:

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=165097

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?p=4047731

The "Benedict Murthas" comment is unrelated to this. You can consider it a prophesy.

Hydrae

06-27-2007, 07:19 PM

As Wooddraw noted, my article was about more than one dem too. And I go one step further than you do by being up front about the fact that we are only seeing a minority of democrats sounding off about getting out of Afghanistan so far. But you and I know what will happen if the anti-war constituency in the dem party succeeds in getting us out of Iraq. The pressure on dem politicians over the other Bush war will become intense. We are already hearing them laying the groundwork as they talk up the resurgent Taliban. memyselfi has been kind enough to bring these "distressing" observations to our doorstep on multiple occasions.

I would venture to guess that a poll of Americans would show that the majority favor us getting out of Iraq and a small minority want us out of Afghanistan at this time. I can't think of a single person I know who had problems with us going in to Afghanistan but a large number of them who were against the war in Iraq. I also know that the few people I know who were in favor of invading Iraq are now espousing ending the farce and getting out of there now.

patteeu

06-27-2007, 07:21 PM

I would venture to guess that a poll of Americans would show that the majority favor us getting out of Iraq and a small minority want us out of Afghanistan at this time. I can't think of a single person I know who had problems with us going in to Afghanistan but a large number of them who were against the war in Iraq. I also know that the few people I know who were in favor of invading Iraq are now espousing ending the farce and getting out of there now.

:shrug:

BucEyedPea

06-27-2007, 07:26 PM

Either way, both threads are crap.
LMAO

Hydrae

06-27-2007, 07:29 PM

:shrug:

Just trying to say that those are two very different issues to most Americans. Yes, they are both part of the "WOT" but I don't think most people see them in that manner.

Afghanistan - we were justified in going in
Iraq - never should have gone there

Plus the whole not really hearing much about what is and is not happening in Afghanistan has taken it off the radar for most people. In our YouTube/American Idol society it might as well be ancient history by now. "What, we still have troops in Afghanistan? I thought we finished that place off a couple years ago."

Adept Havelock

06-27-2007, 07:31 PM

Sure:

Thank Ya kindly.
As for
http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=165097

A link to the top of this thread? I don't see much other than "Benedict Murthas" that qualifies as hyperbole here, unless it's you claiming his thread is hyperbole? Can you be more specific? :shrug:

As for

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?p=4047731

I see two folks who disagree as to what constitutes a policy "designed to hand the jihadists a victory". I suppose both positions could be considered hyperbole, as I seriously doubt either policy was designed with the "purpose" of granting a Jihadist victory.

I still don't see the hyperbole you specifically referred to when you stated TJ had "attributed Senator Lugars statement to the entire GOP". As this was my original question...once again...link? Perhaps to the specific post in which he did it? Or was your claim just hyperbole?

The "Benedict Murthas" comment is unrelated to this. You can consider it a prophesy.

:rolleyes:

Yeah, I'm sure a line like:

Vocal objections to Afghanistan are still in the minority among democrats, but you can bet that as soon as they achieve defeat in Iraq, a majority of the Benedict Murthas will turn their sights on Afghanistan.

put in the header of a post about Dems calling for a withdrawl from afghanistan is "unrelated to this". Whatever floats your boat, I suppose.

Like I said, I find "Benedict Murthas" rather amusing, but I doubt it's for the same reason you do. PBJ

Logical

06-27-2007, 07:32 PM

Is patteeu becoming bitter?

Adept Havelock

06-27-2007, 07:36 PM

Is patteeu becoming bitter?

:shrug:
.

Logical

06-27-2007, 07:37 PM

That Benedict Murtha crack is bothersome to me. Like with Vietnam, the folks that ended the madness will take the blame for the loss from the lemmings, and not the idiots who got us into the no-win situation to begin with.

With regards to Afghanistan, I don't honestly know enough about the situation to make even an educated guess at what our course there should be.

I do know that our president took his eye off the ball on the war on terror and put us in a losing situation in both fronts.:clap: Really good point

Logical

06-27-2007, 07:39 PM

But they can die trying...

I just want a whole sale turn over...Most of these bastards have been there far too long.

We can't get term limits, too expensive for an honest quality person to run against them
Like there are are in honest quality people who can afford to run anyway?

BucEyedPea

06-27-2007, 07:44 PM

Love the label design Adept...good choice. :thumb:

Gonna have to save that.

mlyonsd

06-27-2007, 07:44 PM

I think if we get out of Iraq we will do the same in Afghanistan with the same result.

You might want to avoid the fact they aren't the same fight but in the end you're just kidding yourself.

BucEyedPea

06-27-2007, 07:58 PM

You might want to avoid the fact they aren't the same fight but in the end you're just kidding yourself.

The only reason we can consider it the same fight is because it was made into one. It didn't have to.

mlyonsd

06-27-2007, 08:07 PM

The only reason we can consider it the same fight is because it was made into one. It didn't have to.

You're looking backwards. I'm looking forwards.

Even if we wouldn't have invaded Iraq the Afghanistan problem would still remain. There are extremists hell bent on ruling the area. Extremists that come from all over the region including our 'friends' like Pakistan.

In the end I think we will face the same fate there as the Russians and will just get the hell out. Anyone that thinks Iraq is unwinnable had better think the same with Afghanistan or they are just kidding themselves.

The region's people either take to democracy or not. I've come to understand we can't force our apple pie mentality on them when they think stoning a woman for not covering her face or falling in love with a man from another religious sect is a normal Sunday afternoon.

If I were president I'd spend every waking moment getting us off of foreign oil.

Silock

06-27-2007, 08:13 PM

You're looking backwards. I'm looking forwards.

Even if we wouldn't have invaded Iraq the Afghanistan problem would still remain. There are extremists hell bent on ruling the area. Extremists that come from all over the region including our 'friends' like Pakistan.

In the end I think we will face the same fate there as the Russians and will just get the hell out. Anyone that thinks Iraq is unwinnable had better think the same with Afghanistan or they are just kidding themselves.

The region's people either take to democracy or not. I've come to understand we can't force our apple pie mentality on them when they think stoning a woman for not covering her face or falling in love with a man from another religious sect is a normal Sunday afternoon.

If I were president I'd spend every waking moment getting us off of foreign oil.

Pssh... You're a damn isolationist! :banghead:

mlyonsd

06-27-2007, 08:17 PM

Pssh... You're a damn isolationist! :banghead:Really?

Ps. I'd cut off every import from China until they fess up about the fugging tires they sent us too.

Walmart had Clinton in their back pocket and now we're dying over here.

Silock

06-27-2007, 08:24 PM

You have to spend a lot of time here to understand that little joke lol

BucEyedPea

06-27-2007, 08:30 PM

You're looking backwards. I'm looking forwards.
I am trying to look forward...by learning about what we did in the past that didn't work.

Even if we wouldn't have invaded Iraq the Afghanistan problem would still remain. There are extremists hell bent on ruling the area. Extremists that come from all over the region including our 'friends' like Pakistan.
There's no doubt in my mind we'd still have a WoT to deal with, but Iraq has made it worse. We need to learn from that, by not using more troops and conventional warfare. It's not going to fix it.

I agree with Paul and his 3 former binLaden counter-terrorism unit's CIA that the WoT has to be more of a low visibility war with criminal law enforcement, rewards for locals, and special ops etc. as well as granting them some concessions in our FP. Some military is unavoidable but large scale in your face operations is just not working and only recruits more to AQ's cause.

I can't answer the "extremist" charge as it's a relative term and subjective. I think the NC agenda is pretty extreme: to conquer and remake the entire ME. It's also a recipe for disaster. Their people think we're extreme when we drop bombs from miles away. The average person in those countries don't necessarily have any idea why these are coming down on them.

In the end I think we will face the same fate there as the Russians and will just get the hell out. Anyone that thinks Iraq is unwinnable had better think the same with Afghanistan or they are just kidding themselves.
You know what? That HAS run through my mind. Even Nov 2001 when I was watching Afghanistan on tv, I worried that if the Russians couldn't take it how could we? I just saw that Dateline special on that battle with AQ in Afghanistan and I wondered the same again.

The region's people either take to democracy or not. Apparently they do seem to believe in this institution per polls but that means majority rule to them which is Sharia law...not rights for minorities.

If I were president I'd spend every waking moment getting us off of foreign oil.
This is beyond any president's ability. Govt will never fix that. If it does it's usually something worse. In fact they're keeping us dependent on it. As I've argued with pat, and which you seem to believe as well, we do not need to be engage militarily over there to buy their oil. In fact we buy most of it from Canada. Our only ME top 4 supplier is SA anyway.

mlyonsd

06-27-2007, 08:43 PM

I am trying to look forward...by learning about what we did in the past that didn't work.
So am I. Clinton proved being passive in the region means we get 4 jets plugged into our guts.

Bush tries to impose democracy in Afghanistan and Iraq and so far we're still at war in both regions.

There's no doubt in my mind we'd still have a WoT to deal with, but Iraq has made it worse. We need to learn from that, by not using more troops and conventional warfare. It's not going to fix it.

I think we're saying the same thing.

I agree with Paul and his 3 former binLaden counter-terrorism unit's CIA that the WoT has to be more of a low visibility war with criminal law enforcement, rewards for locals, and special ops etc. as well as granting them some concessions in our FP. It sounds to me that you're avoiding the problem in that we can't dictate how they should feel.

I can't answer the "extremist" charge as it's a relative term and subjective. I think the NC agenda is pretty extreme: to conquer and remake the entire ME. It's also a recipe for disaster. Their people think we're extreme when we drop bombs from miles away. The average person in those countries don't necessarily have any idea why these are coming down on them.That goes back to the argument I made years ago. Muslims in the region have to decide if they want to support law and order. We can't do it for them.
You know what? That HAS run through my mind. Even Nov 2001 when I was watching Afghanistan on tv, I worried that if the Russians couldn't take it how could we? I just saw that Dateline special on that battle with AQ in Afghanistan and I wondered the same again.
Same here.
Apparently they do seem to believe in this institution per polls but that means majority rule to them which is Sharia law...not rights for minorities.
And we have to decide even if they do want to trade oil with us do we still want it knowing they don't believe in our values when it comes to human rights.

That's why I say we need to remove ourselves from depending on one single barrel of oil from them. Until then we don't have a choice.

BucEyedPea

06-27-2007, 09:16 PM

So am I. Clinton proved being passive in the region means we get 4 jets plugged into our guts.

Bush tries to impose democracy in Afghanistan and Iraq and so far we're still at war in both regions.
I wouldn't say he was passive exactly. Maybe just not as aggressive.
He still did not change the underlying issues.

It sounds to me that you're avoiding the problem in that we can't dictate how they should feel.
Wow! I can't believe you actually said that...and that being authoritarian is dealing with the problem. I couldn't disagree more.

That goes back to the argument I made years ago. Muslims in the region have to decide if they want to support law and order.
This is the wrong mentality. It's this right here that's the problem imo.

It's not as simple as them supporting law and order when outsiders with a military are on their land. Afterall, we don't always follow law and order.

What you're not confronting is that theirs ways and laws are different.You can't sell anything to anyone if you insist on seeing everything through the prism of an American. That's arrogance. People resent that. People in other lands are DIFFERENT. They don't think like us; nor fight like us. I don't understand why some Americans refuse to see that even when there is no conflict. It's chauvanism.

We can't do it for them.Same here.And we have to decide even if they do want to trade oil with us do we still want it knowing they don't believe in our values when it comes to human rights.
Again, it is this mindset that IS the problem. This is prejudice.
All Jimmy Carter did was antagonize other areas by insisting on human rights from what I've read. That's very UN'ish. People don't change by being lectured to and talked down to like they're culture is inferior. It creates resentment. We don't like it when Europe does it to us.

That's why I say we need to remove ourselves from depending on one single barrel of oil from them. Until then we don't have a choice.

I don't mind buying from them without feeling a need to change them or socially engineer them. I feel that it's through contact in trade that our ideas have a better chance of taking hold. It's happened througout history. More powerful than a bullet. And if they still don't well we're gonna have to live and let live if they leave us alone too.

jAZ

06-27-2007, 10:09 PM

Vocal objections to Afghanistan are still in the minority among democrats, but you can bet that as soon as they achieve defeat in Iraq, a majority of the Benedict Murthas will turn their sights on Afghanistan. :Poke:
When inconvenient facts get in the way... make shit up!

Welcome to the new patteeu... same as the old patteeu.

patteeu

06-28-2007, 12:41 AM

Thank Ya kindly.
As for
http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=165097

A link to the top of this thread? I don't see much other than "Benedict Murthas" that qualifies as hyperbole here, unless it's you claiming his thread is hyperbole? Can you be more specific? :shrug:

As for

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?p=4047731

I see two folks who disagree as to what constitutes a policy "designed to hand the jihadists a victory". I suppose both positions could be considered hyperbole, as I seriously doubt either policy was designed with the "purpose" of granting a Jihadist victory.

I still don't see the hyperbole you specifically referred to when you stated TJ had "attributed Senator Lugars statement to the entire GOP". As this was my original question...once again...link? Perhaps to the specific post in which he did it? Or was your claim just hyperbole?

:rolleyes:

Yeah, I'm sure a line like:

put in the header of a post about Dems calling for a withdrawl from afghanistan is "unrelated to this". Whatever floats your boat, I suppose.

Like I said, I find "Benedict Murthas" rather amusing, but I doubt it's for the same reason you do. PBJ

You came into an exchange between Wooddraw and myself. Wooddraw was complaining about my thread, which has a title that suggests that "dems" in general are calling for withdrawal from Afghanistan. While I'm sure he objects to my "Benedict Murthas" comment as well, the main thrust of his articulated complaint seemed to be that my title was an exaggeration because only a small number of dems are actually talking about such a thing. I pointed out that Taco's thread, with a very similar title, exaggerated the sentiment in the GOP for a withdrawal from Iraq in the same way and that my thread was a response to his. The hyperbole in question was the exaggeration in the respective titles.

patteeu

06-28-2007, 12:44 AM

Is patteeu becoming bitter?

About what?

Logical

06-28-2007, 05:18 AM

About what?

About the strong movement away from maintaining a large presence in Iraq

patteeu

06-28-2007, 06:09 AM

About the strong movement away from maintaining a large presence in Iraq

Not at all. I said long ago that I could live with a change of strategy that would pull our troops out of the urban centers of Iraq as long as they remained in-country and continued to address the issues of al Qaeda in Iraq and the Iranian threat (and any native jihadist threat that develops within Iraq), but I *am* profoundly disappointed with the sentiments of those, like yourself, who have been agitating for complete surrender/withdrawal.

Of course, I'd be happier with an increase in force size or continued patience with the current strategy, but my bottom line is maintaining a force that is capable of denying al Qaeda the chance to set up uncontested shop in Iraq, deterring Iran, and, if necessary, launching punitive expeditions in the region.

patteeu

06-28-2007, 06:15 AM

When inconvenient facts get in the way... make shit up!

Quite the contrary. When I thought about the idea of this thread after seeing Taco's propagandistic thread title (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=165068), I googled "democrats out afghanistan" and voilà, like magic, this article was very conveniently at the top of the results page.

Silock

06-28-2007, 06:20 AM

Quite the contrary. When I thought about the idea of this thread after seeing Taco's propagandistic thread title (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=165068), I googled "democrats out afghanistan" and voilà, like magic, this article was very conveniently at the top of the results page.

But not everything is a Dem/Rep issue as it relates to this war.

patteeu

06-28-2007, 06:45 AM

But not everything is a Dem/Rep issue as it relates to this war.

There is a substantial correlation on this issue. But even if that were true, I have a hard time understanding why it's particularly relevant. I think I've exhaustively explained that this thread was a response to Taco's thread by now. In that context, it wouldn't have made any sense to say "Men: It's time to bring the troops home... from Afghanistan" or "Hawaiians: It's time to bring the troops home... from Afghanistan", would it?

Silock

06-28-2007, 06:49 AM

I guess, but just because someone opposes the war in Iraq, it doesn't make them a lousy democrat.

jAZ

06-28-2007, 09:40 AM

Quite the contrary. When I thought about the idea of this thread after seeing Taco's propagandistic thread title (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=165068), I googled "democrats out afghanistan" and voilà, like magic, this article was very conveniently at the top of the results page.
The people in DC aren't as stupid as you make them out to be...
...you can bet that as soon as they achieve defeat in Iraq, a majority of the Benedict Murthas will turn their sights on Afghanistan.

patteeu

06-29-2007, 11:09 AM

The people in DC aren't as stupid as you make them out to be...

On the off chance that you're making any sense at all in this thread, I'm not getting it. :shrug:

mlyonsd

06-29-2007, 06:11 PM

Wow! I can't believe you actually said that...and that being authoritarian is dealing with the problem. I couldn't disagree more.

You missed my point. I'm not saying we have the right to dictate how they feel, just that our values aren't the same as theirs and I don't think we can impose ours on them.

This is the wrong mentality. It's this right here that's the problem imo.

It's not as simple as them supporting law and order when outsiders with a military are on their land. Afterall, we don't always follow law and order.

What you're not confronting is that theirs ways and laws are different.You can't sell anything to anyone if you insist on seeing everything through the prism of an American. That's arrogance. People resent that. People in other lands are DIFFERENT. They don't think like us; nor fight like us. I don't understand why some Americans refuse to see that even when there is no conflict. It's chauvanism.

Again, you missed my point that our values are not theirs and I think we're kidding ourselves if we think we can force ours on them.

Again, it is this mindset that IS the problem. This is prejudice.
All Jimmy Carter did was antagonize other areas by insisting on human rights from what I've read. That's very UN'ish. People don't change by being lectured to and talked down to like they're culture is inferior. It creates resentment. We don't like it when Europe does it to us.

I don't mind buying from them without feeling a need to change them or socially engineer them. I feel that it's through contact in trade that our ideas have a better chance of taking hold. It's happened througout history. More powerful than a bullet. And if they still don't well we're gonna have to live and let live if they leave us alone too.

I'm surprised you would consider doing business with a region that believes in stoning women for the silliest of things. If you knew a gas station owner to be a racist KKK member would you buy gas from them if you had other options?